Popular Post Awol Posted January 12, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 12, 2020 58 minutes ago, peterms said: Is it the case that the ambassador's actions in joining or encouraging the protests were in contravention of the Vienna Convention? It was a vigil for the victims of the plane shoot down, 3 of whom were British. He or she is perfectly at liberty under the convention to walk the streets unmolested by the state. When the anti-regime chanting started he left and was arrested 30 mins later while having a haircut. You don’t seriously think an ambassador was on the street organising, inciting or participating in an anti-regime protest, do you? That’s insane for any diplomat. Are you implying the arrest was justified, not a blatantly obvious attempt to distract attention away from the anti-regime protests (which are continuing, btw)? Given their record over the last 72hrs it takes a certain willing enthusiasm to swallow these claims about the ambassador. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 10 hours ago, Awol said: You don’t seriously think an ambassador was on the street organising, inciting or participating in an anti-regime protest, do you? That’s insane for any diplomat. I agree, it would be insane for an ambassador to be inciting protests on the street. But let's be clear that diplomatic staff, most notably the US, do incite street protests, train and fund protestors, and have been doing so in many countries over many decades. Knowing that the US is ramping up its campaign against Iran, and making use of publicising and promoting street protests as part of that, and knowing that the UK is understandably seen as the poodle of the US, it takes a certain degree of foolishness for an ambassador to be seen to take any part in something that is likely to be used as anti-government propaganda. Also a breach of the rules. The Vienna Convention covers such things, I believe. If the ambassador were to say that he had no idea that such an event would be used as anti-government propaganda, frankly I would question his fitness for the role, or else his truthfulness. 10 hours ago, Awol said: Are you implying the arrest was justified, not a blatantly obvious attempt to distract attention away from the anti-regime protests (which are continuing, btw)? Given their record over the last 72hrs it takes a certain willing enthusiasm to swallow these claims about the ambassador. He was briefly held, then released when his identity was confirmed. The way you frame that sentence, it reads like you think he was arrested in full knowledge of who he was, to create a diplomatic incident as a diversion. I'm not sure if that's what you actually mean, or if I'm misreading you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 39 minutes ago, peterms said: He was briefly held, then released when his identity was confirmed. The way you frame that sentence, it reads like you think he was arrested in full knowledge of who he was, to create a diplomatic incident as a diversion. I'm not sure if that's what you actually mean, or if I'm misreading you. Leaving the first part aside (no time now to argue the toss over that) and focusing on the above: 1) He was held for several hours. 2) The idea they were simply confirming his identity is preposterous. All senior foreign diplomats are followed at all times in Middle East countries, it is the standard procedure of their security services and Iran is no different. His attendance at the vigil for victims (a perfectly reasonable event to attend as some were British) will have been noted in real time, reported up the chain and a decision taken on how to exploit it. Hence his being detained at a later time and in a different place. Yes, I’m saying he was arrested in the full knowledge of who he was to create an incident which diverted attention away from the true nature of unfolding events - like the rent-a-crowd protests that followed on at the UK embassy. The regime is rattled by rising domestic opposition, and trying to implicate foreign actors as being responsible is a very old tactic in that part of the world. Certainly easier than admitting the agency of their own people and acknowledging the anger directed towards the regime. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, peterms said: I agree, it would be insane for an ambassador to be inciting protests on the street. But let's be clear that diplomatic staff, most notably the US, do incite street protests, train and fund protestors, and have been doing so in many countries over many decades. Knowing that the US is ramping up its campaign against Iran, and making use of publicising and promoting street protests as part of that, and knowing that the UK is understandably seen as the poodle of the US, it takes a certain degree of foolishness for an ambassador to be seen to take any part in something that is likely to be used as anti-government propaganda. Also a breach of the rules. The Vienna Convention covers such things, I believe. If the ambassador were to say that he had no idea that such an event would be used as anti-government propaganda, frankly I would question his fitness for the role, or else his truthfulness. He was briefly held, then released when his identity was confirmed. The way you frame that sentence, it reads like you think he was arrested in full knowledge of who he was, to create a diplomatic incident as a diversion. I'm not sure if that's what you actually mean, or if I'm misreading you. Are you really claiming that you don't think Iran knows who the British ambassador is and that he isn't followed at all times? Do you really think they need hours to confirm his identity? I get that some people are vehemently against war\the history the West has in the region etc, but one is allowed to be critical of Iran's leadership nonetheless. They're making bad move after bad move, it's not all got to do with the West. Edited January 13, 2020 by magnkarl 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Awol said: Leaving the first part aside (no time now to argue the toss over that) and focusing on the above: 1) He was held for several hours. 2) The idea they were simply confirming his identity is preposterous. All senior foreign diplomats are followed at all times in Middle East countries, it is the standard procedure of their security services and Iran is no different. His attendance at the vigil for victims (a perfectly reasonable event to attend as some were British) will have been noted in real time, reported up the chain and a decision taken on how to exploit it. Hence his being detained at a later time and in a different place. Yes, I’m saying he was arrested in the full knowledge of who he was to create an incident which diverted attention away from the true nature of unfolding events - like the rent-a-crowd protests that followed on at the UK embassy. The regime is rattled by rising domestic opposition, and trying to implicate foreign actors as being responsible is a very old tactic in that part of the world. Certainly easier than admitting the agency of their own people and acknowledging the anger directed towards the regime. I'm taking "briefly held" from the Guardian report. Both that expression and "several hours" are unclear about length of time, and the only quantified time I've seen is the statement of an Iranian minister that he was released 15 minutes after the minister was contacted (the reporting up the chain you mention), which doesn't say how long he was held before that. If he does something which is considered to breach the requirements placed on diplomats, then the proper course of action is presumably for him to be summoned to explain himself, and if the explanation is found wanting, then for the country he belongs to, either to undertake that no repeat will occur or to remove him. Which would be why he was released, and summoned to attend a later appointment. That part is standard procedure, I'd have thought, and it's the arrest which would not be. Clearly you believe the arrest was sanctioned at a senior political level, and that's up to you. The involvement of foreign countries in creating unrest is an ages-old tactic, and very well known. The US in particular has used this as a destabilisation technique for a very long time. A recent example is the meeting between one of the leading Hong Kong protestors and a US embassy official. Closer to home, I'm sure we all know about the lengths the security services go to in order to infiltrate groups of antiwar protestors, animal rights activists, climate change campaigners and so on, including trying to get them to mount actions that may discredit them. Recognising that foreign actors are likely to be involved in Iran is simple common sense, and pretending otherwise would require quite a major act of faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 On the point about the US fomenting unrest domestically to create political instability, it's not only very widely known, but even formally acknowledged. See for example here (pdf) from 10 years back, outlining various options for crushing Iran, specifically including creating insurgency by supporting opposition groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 Twitter, facebook, instagram ramping up their censorship of things that don't accord with the Rogue State regime line. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 While spies are often placed in diplomatic roles in embassies, it is highly unlikely that an ambassador is moonlighting as James Bond. I have no love of US foreign policy, but you've quoted a paper by a non-govt US think tank as evidence of... I don't know what. That people think about these things? The UK ambassador has every right (indeed is expected) to attend a funeral of British nationals killed in a disaster in the country he has been posted to (e.g. our ambassadors to Sri Lanka, Thailand, Indonesia etc. after the tsunami of 2004), and to speak to people at such an event. I'd understand your reaction if he'd been caught redhanded with a pile of leaflets saying Kill the Ayatollah, but come on. 99% of countries in the world would have left him alone in equivalent circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 Obviously there is a difference between politician and diplomat, but still Quote Israeli police arrested MP Anna Kontula (VF) when she was suspected of trying to enter Gaza Anna Kontula was arrested by Israeli police on Monday. Kontula tried to organize a demonstration on the border with Gaza to draw attention to the difficult situation in Gaza. Anna Kontula was with an international activist group when she was arrested. She was at the police station for over ten hours before being released on Monday night. With the campaign, Kontula wanted to draw attention to the fact that Finland, with its arms purchases, also supports the construction of the West Bank wall and human rights violations in Gaza. - That I joined such a radical project is because I think that Finland needs to wake up and realize what we are doing. We support with the citizens' tax funds a country that is guilty of human rights violations and war crimes - it is inanimate and we should stop that, says Kontula by telephone from Tel Aviv. According to Kontula, the Israeli Ministry of Defense recently published a report in which Finland is ranked as the sixth most important country to deal with arms deals. Kontula demands that Finland stop doing arms deals with Israeli companies. https://svenska.yle.fi/artikel/2020/01/14/israelisk-polis-grep-riksdagsledamoten-anna-kontula-vf-da-hon-misstanktes-forsoka 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 Been wondering lately if the Iranian government may have been complicit in the US assassination of Soleimani. Maybe he'd grown a bit beyond their control but they didn't want the questions/aggro which will have come had they got rid of him themselves........ Total conspiracy hypothesis of course. Apols if someone already brought this up 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villakram Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) No more praising of the Oman dictatorship, which is nice. Soleimani was seen as the biggest threat to the political class, in that he was in a position to compete and win in a future election. I imagine various people would have had some concern on his internal military threat depending on the circumstances. So yup, not a crazy thing to think at all @bannedfromHandV. Strategically, it is probably a positive for Iran, though that really depends on them handling the airlines shoot-down correctly *and* the US embargo. Edited January 14, 2020 by villakram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 14, 2020 Share Posted January 14, 2020 The leaders of Shia militias in Iraq that are aligned with the IRGC/Qods force have all been in Iran meeting Ismail Qaani, the guy who replaced Soleimani. It’s being suggested they’re seeking money & support to launch a new Insurgency against US & coalition forces, in Iraq on train and assist/anti-ISIS missions. All very predictable, but will escalate things much further (putting it mildly) if they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villakram Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 1 hour ago, Awol said: The leaders of Shia militias in Iraq that are aligned with the IRGC/Qods force have all been in Iran meeting Ismail Qaani, the guy who replaced Soleimani. It’s being suggested they’re seeking money & support to launch a new Insurgency against US Occupation forces, in Iraq on train and assist/anti-ISIS missions. All very predictable, but will escalate things much further (putting it mildly) if they do. but that would only be if they took the US leadership at their word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 No, no, no. Trump stopped all this with the assassination. If someone else just takes over then this was all just some weird pissing contest that got yet more innocent civilians killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 15, 2020 Share Posted January 15, 2020 (edited) For anyone who is interested in this subject and listens to podcasts, the link below is to a recent episode from the ‘Arms Control Wonk’ team. It’s 47 mins long and pretty niche, but this one focuses on the Iranian retaliatory missile strikes on the bases in Iraq from a technical perspective. They also do brilliant coverage of the North Korean nuclear and missile programmes, but that’s another thread. Enjoy - or not! Link Quote As it turns out, the ACW trio thinks that Iran’s missiles are accurate. Super accurate. As Anne flies across the United States, Aaron and Jeffrey spoke about Iran’s ballistic missile strikes Ain Assad Air Base in Iraq, why the strike on Erbil may have been an outlier, and how nobody is in control of escalation. Edited January 15, 2020 by Awol Fixing link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 26, 2020 Moderator Share Posted January 26, 2020 It seems that today was a good time to tell the truth about the Iran Missile Strike. Trump says no Americans were harmed... but now it appears 34 US Service Personnel are being treated for traumatic brain injuries. Quick, the impeachment trial and that Chinese coughing fit are dominating the news, slip it out now, no-one'll notice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 5 hours ago, bickster said: It seems that today was a good time to tell the truth about the Iran Missile Strike. Trump says no Americans were harmed... but now it appears 34 US Service Personnel are being treated for traumatic brain injuries. Quick, the impeachment trial and that Chinese coughing fit are dominating the news, slip it out now, no-one'll notice Apparently Trump has referred to these brain injuries as 'headaches', because there's nothing too crass for that man to do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 About the whole de-escalation business... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villakram Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 23 hours ago, Awol said: About the whole de-escalation business... Embassy? Is that what we call occupation headquarters? Theoretically, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 The Talibans (and possibly Russia as well) claiming that the CIA chief in Iraq and the brain behind the murder of Qasem Soleimani, Michael D'Andrea was on board the plane the Talibans claim the shot down over Afghanistan. Probably bull but if he was... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts